NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 18-1370 __________ DANIEL GEORGE BROWN, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A074-992-221) Immigration Judge: Honorable Walter Durling _____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) February 13, 2019 Before: MCKEE, COWEN, and ROTH, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: November 27, 2019) ___________ OPINION* ___________ PER CURIAM * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Daniel George Brown, proceeding pro se, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. For the reasons that follow, we will dismiss the petition for review in part and deny it in part. I. Brown is a native and citizen of Jamaica who entered the United States on September 23, 1992, as a non-immigrant with authorization to remain for six months. Brown overstayed and was subsequently convicted on April 24, 1995, and June 23, 1995, for possession of and intent to deliver/distribute a controlled substance in violation of 35 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 780-113(a)(16) and (30). On February 12, 1997, Brown was charged as removable under former INA § 241(a)(1)(B) as an overstay, and under former INA §§ 241(a)(2)(A)(iii) and (B)(i) on account of his drug convictions. The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) sustained all charges of removability and ordered Brown removed on March 18, 1997. Brown declined to apply for relief from deportation and waived his right to an appeal to the BIA. Brown was deported in 1997 and again in 2005 after an illegal reentry. See United States v. Brown, E.D. Pa. Crim. No. 16-cr-00234 (recounting history); Brown v. INS, E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 02-cv-04600 (same). In July 2016, nearly twenty years later, Brown filed a letter with the Immigration Court requesting that his case be reopened. The IJ treated Brown’s letter as a motion to reopen proceedings, and denied it. The IJ concluded that Brown’s motion was untimely 2 filed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1). The IJ further found, inter alia, that Brown’s motion failed to state any new facts that might be proven at a hearing, was not supported by any evidentiary materials as required by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(3), and failed to establish prima facie eligibility for relief. Brown sought review, but the BIA dismissed his appeal in a decision issued on March 3, 2017, and reissued on August 15, 2017. The BIA affirmed the denial of Brown’s reopen motion for the reasons stated by the IJ. In particular, it agreed that the motion was untimely. The BIA noted that Brown had submitted additional evidence along with an application for cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(b). The BIA concluded, however, that reopening was not appropriate because Brown was ineligible for cancellation of removal given his conviction for an offense under INA § 237(a)(2), specifically, possession ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals